Asian Journal of Medical Sciences 3(8): 146-150, 2011
ISSN: 146-150, 2011
© Maxwell Scientific Organization, 2011
Received: April 14, 2011
Accepted: May 18, 2011
Published: August 30, 2011
Anthropometric Sexual Dimorphism of Hand Length, Breadth and Hand
Indices of University of Port-Harcourt Students
1
P.C. Ibeachu, 1E.C. Abu and 2B.C. Didia
Department of Human Anatomy, Faculty of Basic Medical Sciences,
2
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Faculty of Sciences, University of Port-Harcourt,
Choba, Rivers State, Nigeria
1
Abstract: Forensic anthropometry incorporates most of the techniques originating from the analysis of human
skeletal material from archaeological sites .Hand index which is derived from hand dimensions can be used to
estimate differences related to sex, age and race in forensic and legal sciences. This study estimated the sex of
Nigerian student from hand measurements. Three hundred students (150 males and 150 females) from
University of Port-Harcourt Nigerian with age ranges of 18-30 years were used .The hand breadth and length
of these subjects were measured using an automatic sliding caliper. The hand index was calculated as
percentage of hand breadth over the hand length .The statistical analysis of the data obtained showed that male
hand dimension was significantly higher than those of the females at p<0.05. In general the left hand length was
obviously higher than the right hand length while in the breadth there was a reverse. The male data revealed
a mean right hand length and breadth of 19.02±0.08 and 8.58±0.03,with a mean left hand length and breadth
of 19.09±0.07 and 8.43±0.03. On the other hand, the female mean right hand length and breadth was
17.62±0.07 and 7.69±0.03 with a mean left hand length and breadth of 17.69±0.07and 7.58±0.03.The hand
index obtained showed higher value for male than female with right and left mean value of 45.16±.19 and
44.21±.17 as compared to female mean right and left hand index of 43.68±0.19 and 42.90±0.19. The average
hand indices of left and right hand for both male and female are 44.68±0.13 and 43.29±0.14, respectively. The
results of the hand index suggest that the population studied belong to two groups of hand dimension, the
dolichocheir and the mesocheir group.
Key words: Hand Length, hand Breadth, hand Index, sex and idenfication
INTRODUCTION
Nigerians has been reported (Barnabas et al., 2008) .The
morphometric parameters of the hand show considerable
sexual dimorphism in the Indian population while the
hand and palm index were poor sex indicator (Kanchan
and Rastogi, 2009). Agnihotri et al. (2005) in their study
of determination of sex of Mauritius Population from
hand measurement reported that hand index more than 44
is suggestive of male and less than 44 is suggestive of a
female. The anthropometric study of a convenience
sample of 51 female and 50 male adults of Bangladeshi
origin living in the United State, but spent most of their
lives in Bangladeshi showed significant difference in
palm and finger lengths, breadths and depths (Imrhan
et al., 2008). To the best of our knowleged there is
paucity of information on hand dimension of Nigeria
population in correlation to sex.
Although this has been reported by several
researchers but the obvious truth remains that standards of
morphological and morphometric sex differences in the
skeleton may differ with the population sample involved
especially with reference to dimensions and indices and
thus cannot be applied universally (Krogman and Iscan,
The need for determination of sex from skeletal
remains in living and non-living population for genetic,
anthropological, odontologic and forensic purposes has
been documented by several researchers. Anthropological
measurements of the skeleton and the comparison with
existing standard data must then be applied and may help
to differentiate between male and female (Vandana et al.,
2008). This has become useful in recent times due to mass
disasters like plane crash, mass suicide, forest fires, and
earth quakes
However, the hand bones have been documented as
good anthropometric parameters and had proven to
exhibit great sexual dimorphism. Bhatnagar et al. (1984),
estimated stature of Punjabi male using three
anthropometric measurement of the left and right hands
separately. Similarly, Abdel-Malek et al. (1990) also
estimated the stature of Egyptian subjects using two
anthropometric measurement of the hand.
A study of sexual dimorphism in hand and foot
length, indices, stature-ratio and relationship to height in
Corresponding Author: P.C. Esomonu, Department of human Anatomy, Faculty of Basic Medical Sciences, University of Port
Harcourt, Choba, Rivers State, Nigeria. Tel.: +2348037027190
146
Asian J. Med. Sci., 3(8): 146-150, 2011
Table 1: Summary of hand length value of both sexes of n = 150 each
Male
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Right
17.02
23.06
19.02±0.08
Left
17.14
21.89
19.09±0.07
Female
Right
15.60
20.78
17.62±0.07
Left
15.71
20.82
17.69±0.07
1986). This study therefore aimed at investigating hand
length, hand breadth and hand indices of University of
Port-Harcourt student with reference to sex.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Three hundred students (150 males and 150 females
devoid of gross anatomical pathology were randomly
selected from the University of Port-Harcourt Rivers
State, Nigeria in 2009. The age of subjects used ranged
from ages 18-30 years, because at this age range most
people had attained their maximum growth and therefore
their maximum hand length and breadth. The subjects
hand is extended, with the palm in a supine position and
a sliding caliper was used. The hand length was measured
as a straight distance between the distal crease of the wrist
joint and the most anterior projecting point (the middle
finger) (Fig. 1). The hand breadth was
Table 2: Summary of hand breadth value for both sexes (n = 150)
Male
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Right
7.52
9.70
8.58±0.03
Left
7.44
9.58
8.43±0.03
Female
Right
6.76
8.92
7.69±0.03
Left
6.28
8.92
7.58±0.03
Table 3: Summary of hand dimension (Length,
both sexes
Average mean
Average mean
Sex
length
breadth
Male
19.05±0.95
8.50±0.42
Female 17.65±0.91
7.96±0.34
Average hand
index
44.68±0.19
43.29±0.19
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Hand index = Hand breadth ×100
-----------------Hand length
Table 1 represents the mean, maximum and minimum
values of hand length for male and females. Table 2
represents the mean, maximum and minimum values of
hand breadth for male and females. Table 3 represents the
summary of average hand dimension (hand length,
breadth and indices of both sexes. The average hand
length for was 19.05±0.95 and 17.65±0.91, while the
average hand breadth was 8.50±0.42 for males and was
7.96±0.34 for females. The average hand indices of left
and right hand for both male and female were 44.68±0.13
and 43.29±0.14, respectively. Table 4 and 5 represent the
age wise distribution of hand dimension of both sexes.
The human hand which is the most used and versatile
part of the body is of great scientific importance to
investigators in the field of anthropometry, forensic
pathology, Orthopedic Surgery and ergonomics. The
present study investigated the hand length, hand breadth
and hand index of university of Port-Harcourt students in
correlation to sex. Authorities appear to agree that no part
of the human body has been as neglected as has the hand
(Ashley, 1931; Wilder, 1920). The assessment of the
physical dimensions of the human hand provides a metric
description to ascertain human-machine compatibility
(Fraser, 1980; Freivalds, 1987) in the design of manual
systems for the bare and gloved hand (e.g., design of hand
tools, knobs and controls, personal equipment, consumer
appliances in the home and industry). Ducharme (1977)
observed that soldering tools, pliers and wire strippers
caused frequent complaints in women workers, due to
dimensional incompatibility and improper usage of tools.
In adults, sexual differences are evident in hand length
measurements and in hand width to length ratios
(Mcfadden and Shubel 2002).
Our study showed that the male hand length, breadth
and indices were higher than the female. The difference in
measured as a straight distance from the most laterally
placed point on the hand of the 2nd metacarpal to the most
medially placed point located on the hand of the 5th
metacarpal (Fig. 2).The hand index indicates the change
in a value when compared with the level of that value.
Hand index was calculated by dividing the hand breadth
by the hand length and multiplying by 100.
The result obtained was considered based on lengthbreadth index 1 standard by Krogman hand indices in
which five classes of hand indices are introduced.
C
C
C
C
C
Breadth, Indices) for
Hyperdolichocheri (hdch)x-40.9
Dolichocheri (dch)41.0-43.9
Mesocheri (mch)44.0-46.9
Brachycheri (bch)47.0-49.9
Hyperbrachycheir (hbch) 50.0-x
Fig. 1: Measurment of hand length
Fig. 2: Measurment of hand breadth
147
Asian J. Med. Sci., 3(8): 146-150, 2011
Table 4: Age group distribution of hand dimensions in male
Age groups
No. in each groups
18- 19
Right hand
16
Left hand
20
Right hand
13
Left hand
21
Right hand
5
Left hand
22
Right hand
19
Left hand
23
Right hand
21
Left hand
24
Right hand
26
Left hand
25
Right hand
22
Left hand
26 to 30
Right hand
28
Left hand
Hand length mean
Hand breadth mean
Hand index mean
18.66±0.28
18.73±0.29
8.38±0.13
8.29±0.12
44.99±0.68
44.34±0.67
18.68±0.29
8.81±0.27
8.55±0.09
8.39±0.09
45.90±0.70
44.70±0.60
18.66±0.49
18.72±0.44
8.46±0.24
8.27±0.16
45.48±2.0
44.49±1.2
18.92±0.17
19.09±0.17
8.57±0.08
8.47±0.08
45.43±0.49
44.35±0.51
18.99±0.18
19.09±0.18
8.49±0.01
8.34±0.09
44.66±0.47
43.69±0.38
19.10±0.18
19.14±0.17
8.67±0.06
8.49±0.07
45.59±0.51
44.69±0.49
19.11±0.16
19.17±0.17
8.72±0.08
8.56±0.07
46.22±0.77
45.15±0.72
19.37±0.23
19.35±0.19
8.59±0.08
8.42±0.09
44.99±0.83
44.23±0.67
Hand breadth mean
Hand index mean
7.70±0.09
7.65±0.09
43.90±0.55
43.57±0.56
7.68±0.12
7.63±0.12
44.75±0.65
44.37±0.63
7.83±0.01
7.75±0.01
45.03±0.75
44.46±0.87
7.72±0.07
7.59±0.09
43.43±0.45
42.63±0.51
7.64±0.09
7.55±0.09
43.66±0.54
42.90±0.42
7.78±0.13
7.59±0.13
44.38±0.63
43.06±0.76
7.54±0.48
7.49±0.17
44.67±1.4
43.47±1.2
7.80±0.09
7.75±0.09
43.89±0.90
43.10±0.98
Table 5: Age group distribution of hand index in females (n = 150)
Age groups
No. in each groups
Hand length mean
18- 19
19
Right hand
17.60±0.18
Left hand
17.58±0.17
20
21
Right hand
17.18±0.29
Left hand
17.22±0.31
21
18
Right hand
17.40±0.21
Left hand
17.44±0.25
22
26
Right hand
17.79±0.19
Left hand
17.83±0.21
23
34
Right hand
17.57±0.23
Left hand
17.62±0.22
24
18
Right hand
17.56±0.26
Left hand
17.66±0.28
25
6
Right hand
16.93±0.46
Left hand
17.28±0.17
26 to 30
8
Right hand
17.79±0.29
Left hand
17.93±0.30
Table 6: Comparison of the Male hand dimension means from various population
Hand dimension
Average (HandLength)
RHL
LHL
Average (Hand Breadth)
RHB
LHB
Mauriatus
Sri Lankan
(Agnihotri
(Isurani
et al., 2005) et al., 2009)
189 mm
19.01±0.86
France
(Dean,
2006)
190.8 mm
Vietnamese
(Imrhan
et al., 1993)
177 mm
Bangladesh
(Imrhan
et al., 2006)
174 mm
Mexican
(Imrhan and
Contreras,
2005)
185.5 mm
Jordanian
(Nabeel,
2008)
191.2 mm
Nourthern
Nigeria
(Barnabas
et al., 2008)
19.85±0.86
19.93±0.93
84 mm
NA
87.3 mm
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.90±0.95
8.68±0.92
hand dimension between male and female could be
explained as part of genetic expression of male being
larger than female. The general analysis of both sides
Present
study
19.05±0.95
19.02±0.08
19.09±0.07
8.50±0.42
8.58±0.03
8.43±0.03
within the groups showed that the mean left hand length
values were consistently higher than the right hand except
in age group 18-19 in females and age group 26-30 in
148
Asian J. Med. Sci., 3(8): 146-150, 2011
Table 7: Comparison of the female hand dimension means from various population
Mauriatus
Sri Lankan
(Agnihotri
(Isurani
et al., 2005) et al., 2009)
172 mm
17.62±0.93
Hand dimension
Average(HL) Hand length
Right
Left
Average(HB) Hand breadth 74 mm
Right
Left
NA
France
(Dean,
2006)
173.5 mm
Vietnamese
(Imrhan
et al., 1993)
165 mm
Bangladesh
(Imrhan
et al., 2006)
167 mm
Mexican
(Imrhan and
Contreras,
2005)
171.8 mm
77.0 mm
NA
NA
NA
Jordanian
(Nabeel,
2008)
171.27 mm
18.51±0.66
17.62±.07
NA
7.82±0.49
7.72±0.46
Nourthern
Nigeria
(Barnabas
et al., 2008)
Present
study
17.65±.91
18.52±0.72
17.69±.07
7.96±.34
7.69±.03
7.58±.03
RHL: Right Hand Length; RHB: Right Hand Breadth; LHL: Left Hand Length; LHB: Left Hand Breadth; NA: Not available
Health Science University of Port-Harcourt, Nigeria for
his generosity in the statistical data analysis. Our
profound gratitude also goes to the University of PortHarcourt students for their wonderful cooperation
throughout the study.
males, while the mean right hand breadth values were
higher than the left hand breadth. When sex differences
are noted, they are generally larger for the right hand than
the left in humans (McFadden and Shubel, 2002). These
observations in side differences contradict with the above
investigation in hand length but agree with them in hand
breadth although the reason for this is uncertain. Also, our
values were slightly lower when compared with the
values from Barnabas et al. (2008) in the same population
but different ethnic group. However, this is in agreement
with (Davies et al., 1980; Kanchan and Rastogi, 2009)
which shows that there are ethnic differences in the
anatomical dimensions and its relation to sex. It has also
been emphasized that differences in body dimension
among population and ethnic origins are as a result of
differences in nutrition and levels of physical activity
(Malina, 1994). The mean value of male hand length,
breadth and indices is higher than that from a study done
on Mauritaus population by Agnihotri et al. (2005), which
revealed an average length of an adult male hand of
189mm, while the average length of an adult female hand
is 172mm. The average hand breadth for adult males and
females is 84 and 74 mm, respectively. Our study
revealed an average length of an adult male hand of
19.05±0.94 with average hand breadth of 8.5±0.41, while
the average length of adult hand is 17.66±0.05 with
average hand breadth of 7.63±0.02. The results of our
mean hand length is in agreement with that done by
Isurani et al., 2008) with a male mean hand length of
19±0.86 and female mean hand 17.62±0.93. The hand
index which is a percentage expression of the breadth
over the length suggested that adult Nigerians falls to
mesocheir and dolichocheir groups according to Wechsler
hand classification (Ethel et al., 1995) (Table 6, 7).
REFERENCES
Abdel-Malek, A.K., A.M. Ahmed, S.A.A. Sharkawi and
N.M.A. Hamid, 1990. Prediction of stature from hand
measurements. Forensic Sci. Int., 46: 181-187.
Agnihotri, A., B. Purwar and N. Jeebun, 2005.
Determination of sex by hand dimensions. The
Internet J. Forensic Sci., 1: 2.
Ashley-Montagu, F.M., 1931. On the primatethumb. Am.
J. Phys. Anthropol., 16(2): 291.
Barnabas, D. and A. Elupko, 2008. Sexual Dimorphism in
Hand and Foot Length, Indices, stature-ratio and
Relationship to Height in Nigerians. Internet J.
Forensic Sci., 3: 1.
Bhatnagar, D.P., S.P. Thapar and M.K. Batish, 1984.
Identification of personal height from the
somatometry of the hand in Punjabi males. Forensic
Sci. Int., 24: 137-141.
Davies, B.T., A.K. Benson, A. Courtney and I. Minto,
1980. A comparison of hand anthropometry of
females in the three ethnic groups. Ergonomics, 23:
183-184.
Ducharme, R.F., 1977. Women workers rate male tools
inadequate. Hum. Factors Soc. Bull., 20: 1-2.
Dean, R.S., 2006. Sexual dimorphism in upper
Palaeolithic hand stencils. Antiquity, 80: 390-404.
Ethel, J.A., 1995. The anthropology and social
significance of the human hand. Virual Library
Project, 2(2): 4-21.
Fraser, T.M., 1980. Ergonomic Principles in the Design of
Hand Tools. Occup Safety and Health Series No. 44.
Geneva: International Labour Office, pp: 93.
Freivalds, A., 1987. The ergonomics of tools. Int. Rev.
Ergonom., 1: 43-75.
Imrhan, S.N., M.D. Sarder and N. Mandahawi, 2008.
Hand anthropometry in survey of Jordanian. Int. J.
Indus. Ergonom., 38(11-12): 966-976.
Imrhan, S.N., M. Nguyen and N. Nguyen, 1993. Hand
anthropometry of americans of vietnamese origin.
Int. J. Indus. Ergonom., 12: 281-287.
CONCLUSION
This study has succeeded in establishing standard
values of hand dimensions for this population which will
not only serve as a useful tool in forensic investigation
and clinical practice, but also relevance in ergo-design
applications of hand tools and devices.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors are sincerely grateful to Dr. G.S.
Oladipo, Department of Human Anatomy College of
149
Asian J. Med. Sci., 3(8): 146-150, 2011
Imrhan, S.N., M.D. Sarder and N. Mandahawi, 2005.
Hand anthropometry in a sample of Bangladesh
females. Proceedings of the 10th Annual
International Conference on Industrial EngineeringTheory, Applica-tions and Practice, Clearwater, FL,
pp: 566-569.
Imrhan, S.N., M.D. Sarder and N. Mandahawi, 2006.
Hand anthropometry in a sample of Bangladesh
males. Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Industrial
Engineering Research Conference, Clearwater, FL,
pp: 15-18.
surani, I., N. Ganananda and P. Nadeeka, 2009.
Prediction of personal stature based on the hand
length. Galle Med. J., 14: 1.
Kanchan, T. and P. Rastogi, 2009. Sex determination
from hand dimensions of North and South Indians. J.
Forensic Sci., 54(3): 546-550.
Krogman, W.M. and M.Y. Iscan, 1986. Determination of
Sex and Parturition. The Human Skeleton in Forensic
Medicine. Charles C Thomas Publishers, Springfield,
pp: 208-259.
Nabeel, M., S.I. Salman and B.S. Al-Shobaki, 2008. Hand
anthropometry survey for the Jordanian population.
Int. J. Indus. Ergonom., 38: 966-976.
Malina, R.M., 1994. Physical activity and training:
Effects on stature and adolescent growth spurt. Med.
Sci. Sport. Exer, 26(6): 759-766.
McFadden, D. and E. Shubel, 2002. Relative lengths of
fingers and toes in human males and females. Horm.
Behav., 42: 492-500.
Vandana, M.R., S. Sushmita and B. Puja, 2008.
Mandibular canine index as a sex determinant: A
study on the population of western Uttar Pradesh. J.
Oral Maxillofac Pathol., 12: 56-59.
Wilder, H.H., 1920. A laboratory manual of
anthropometry, Blakiston, Philadelphia, pp: 84-109.
150